Jhandoo
& Ors Vs. Union of India [1996] INSC 911 (7 August 1996)

This
appeal arises from the judgment dated July 23, 1984 of the Division Bench of the Delhi
High Court made in RFA No.281 of 1979.

Notification
under Section 4 [1] of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short, the
"Act"] acquiring a large extent of land was published on March 8, 1957. The land of the appellant
admeasuring one biga and 14 biswas formed part of that land. Reference Court
relying upon judgment of the High Court in A.N. Bhandari v. Union of India [LPA
No.81 of 1979 decided on May 1, 1990] awarded compensation @ Rs.10/- per square
yard. On appeal, it was confirmed. The High Court relied upon a single sale
deed in similar case in which market value had been fixed @ Rs.12/- per square
yard. Therefore, the appellant also claimed that rate. Since he was not awarded
the rate claimed by him, he has filed appeal in this Court challenging the
impugned judgment of the High Court.

Shri Juneja,
learned counsel for the appellant contended that the High Court, having found
that the market value of the land in question could fetch was Rs.12/- per
square yard, would have granted compensation at that rate.

Though
prima facie we find the contention plausible and acceptable, in view of the
legal position that at least 1/3rd of the market value has to be deduced
towards development charges and that the said consideration was not adopted in
the case on which reliance is placed, the fact boils down that if the award is
to be interfered with, the appellant would get less than what has been granted
to him by the High Court. However, since the State has not filed any appeal and
in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that it is not a
case warranting interference.

The
appeal under Section 54 of the Act would not lie to this Court. A reading of
Section 54 would clearly indicate that the appeal shall lie in any proceedings
under the act only to the High Court against the award and decree of the
reference Court and further appeal to this Court would be under Article 136 of
the Constitution read with Section 11, CPC. by way of special leave and not
under Section 54 of the Act.

Accordingly,
this appeal cannot be treated to be an appeal under Section 54 of the Act but
one by special leave under Article 136. In either case, we do not find any
ground warranting interference. Hence the appeal is dismissed. No costs.